This isn't a good argument. "That's bad" isn't a coherent thing to say if you are starting from the "Its all meaningless" stance you took in the first tweet. You don't get to handwave away everyone else's intuited sentiments and keep your own.
-
-
Replying to @GreenBeing6
I'm not *making* the argument here, I'm just stating that that's what I already believe and why I find people's intuitions that it can't be true so easy to dismiss
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
"and that's bad". What does "bad" mean there. I know this argument is preempting a criticism of a position you are taking in a related debate, not the meat of the main argument itself. You are still going to have to make "bad" coherent thing to say we shouldn't make families.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GreenBeing6
My moral system is that to do so inflicts unjustifiable suffering, and the fact that this suffering is ubiquitous and normalized only makes it more immoral
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
Immoral in reference to what? If you want to throw out those other ungrounded intuitions about the value of life you have to give grounding for your own. Unjustified implies there is a theoretical just version of suffering, what makes your idea of the just version correct?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GreenBeing6
Honestly I don't think any suffering is actually justified, I only use that term in the relative sense
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
What does being "justified" mean in the sense you are using it. If at some point you aren't attaching these value judgements to a more grounded standard than values you were dismissing earlier, I don't see how the meaninglessness point can help your case.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GreenBeing6 @arthur_affect
okay, let's say arthur's a utilitarian now what
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @perdricof @arthur_affect
Not a moral realist btw. I don't have a way around this myself. I just don't think pointing out that someone else's moral stance has ungrounded value judgements is a good argument if you are then going to go on and make an argument for why something else is right to do.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GreenBeing6 @perdricof
Look if you believe that human reproduction is natural and therefore good in and of itself, fine, obviously I can't argue with that if you just take it as an axiom What I'm arguing against, empirically, is the idea that "natural" means "leads to happiness or fulfillment"
4 replies 4 retweets 20 likes
Theists will just lay ideas on the table like "God don't make no junk", "God doesn't make mistakes", etc. and then bury you in a bunch of qualifications and "mysterious ways" shit when you press them on that because the world is verifiably filled with mistakes and junk
-
-
If you believe the nature of meaning is ineffable so if the whole grand human experiment comes to an end within five hundred years with all of us dying in some embarrassing collapse, that's still meaningful because God willed it, good for you 'Cause that's what's gonna happen
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Just an aside, but it is this kind of writing that keeps lurkers like me reading you.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.